Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MARUTI LAXMAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 595 JT 1996 (5) 73
1996 SCALE (4)298
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though notice was served on the respondent, no one
appears on behalf of him.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant.
Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the ’Act’] was published
on July 31, 1969. The Land Acquisition officer made his
award on October 12, 1972 awarding compensation @ Rs.
1,000/- per acre. On reference, the civil Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs.2,000/- per acre by award and decree
dated February 18, 1977. The High Court while dismissing the
State appeal on July 16, 1986 has awarded the enhanced
benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
This appeal is only in respect of awarding of enhanced
benefits under Sections 23 [2], 28 end 23 [1A] of the Act.
In view of the settled legal position that the award of the
civil Court was made long before the date of the
introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the claimant
is not entitled to the enhanced benefits. That apart, it is
also settled legal position that the High Court, while
dismissing the appellant’s appeal, had no jurisdiction to
award the additional benefits since the claimants did not
file any appeal for further enhancement. Therefore, in the
absence of award additional compensation being awarded, the
High Court has no jurisdiction to award the benefits under
the provisions Of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
High Court awarding solatium, interest and additional amount
under Section 23 [2], 28 and 23 [1-A] stands set aside. No
costs.